Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article .com,
"Pete C." wrote:


I frequently get that nonsensical argument. The fact is that we do not
have a reasonable alternative to automobiles, while we have a number of
reasonable and much safer alternatives to nat. gas.

You still haven't given any verified data indicating the danger you
are so sure is happening. Until then I would remind you that anecdote is
not the singular of data. And Google and CNN random news accounts
certainly don't fit that bill.

I'm not aware of any central nat. gas explosion clearing house, so
you'll just have to rely on the thousands of news reports of such
explosions for your proof, unless of course you think CNN and all the
various other TV stations and newspapers are faking those reports.

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive or
heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and killed
people. Yes, some of those heating sources have been known to cause
house fires, but those are slow and escapable unlike nat. gas
explosions. Requiring gas detectors ($50 or so) in homes with nat. gas
would go a long way towards improving safety, and indeed the generally
required CO detectors are available in dual CO / gas detectors for about
$60.